Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

Check this out


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3030441/The-man-convicted-murder-Meredith-Kercher-says-seek-retrial-Amanda-Knox-cleared.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/11522333/Rudy-Guede-calls-for-retrial-after-Amanda-Knox-acquitted-of-Meredith-Kercher-murder.html

Retrial would be interesting.

Here's Rudy:

“I am the impossibly convicted one,” Guede, 28, told New Center-Right Senator Augello. “I’m accomplice to a crime for which no one else has been found guilty. I’m the only one convicted, but the judges will be convinced that I certainly can’t be an accomplice to myself.”

Maybe Rudy's accomplices were "the dog" and "the professor". That would explain the lack of additional foot (and paw) prints in Meredith's wet blood.

 

[Grinder]

And do not forget.....

....given that Rudy's process was a series of fast-track trials, there was no evidence presented. Fast Track trials are essentially a regular trial with the evidence phase missing.

"Multiple Attackers" was merely an assertion which both sides, in Rudy's process, accepted.

The first, very first evidentiary testing of that process was the Massei trial against RS and AK in 2009. At that trial 8 of 9 experts said that a single attacker could not be ruled out. In conceding that, Massei said he found for "multiple attackers" on other grounds (than the forensics), namely that he'd found AK and RS guilty!!!!!

Multiple attackers has never been sustained by the evidence - much less at Rudy's process where no evidence was presented.

Fast track is not a nolo contendere trial. The defendant is limited in bringing in expert witnesses and mounting a full defense. But they are allowed to fight against conviction.

I haven't found the motivation for the first trial but this link to the appeal motivation will provide you with certain evidences that were presented at his trial.

 

[Kauffer]

Potentially, depending on what the Motivation Report states and what compensation is paid, there may be issues for the ECHR besides length of trial. The section of the ECHR Admissibility guide on "victim status" begins on page 16 of the quoted citation, and examination of the entire section suggests that in some cases acquittal alone may not be sufficient redress, and victim status may still exist in the view of ECHR.

It is true that a person retains 'victim status' until or unless violations of rights are acknowledged and remedied, but this does not, as far as I can see, extend to the court agreeing to adjudicate the existence of a violation relating to any fair trial related matters in the event of an acquittal (except length of proceedings). Indeed, the court states it will not consider such claims and cites the supporting case law. If there are any judgements that contradict this, I'd love to know about them.

The question of what is 'decisive to the outcome of proceedings' is an overarching one. So, whatever disadvantage it was felt might apply at trial as a result of lack of discovery, has in fact not weighed on the final outcome as Amanda has not suffered for it having been acquitted. The court does not want to be swamped by applications from acquitted persons with lingering beefs about the conduct of their proceedings - effectively trying to fight battles when the war has already been won.

The court refers to violations being acknowledged 'expressly' or 'in substance' and to redress. So, if a person is acquitted, it may not necessarily preclude a claim, for example, of a violation under Article 3 for inhuman and degrading treatment, if it is not acknowledged, any adverse consequences eliminated and redress provided. Yet the ECHR encourages States to recognise and remedy their own violations and does not ordinarily set out to punish them after rectifying error.

Having said all that, assuming Amanda and her lawyers make a further application to the ECHR in connection with length of proceedings, there will be an opportunity to argue why the proceedings should be regarded as having been of unreasonable length. Some assistance with this may well be provided in the motivations. Hellmann's motivations, of course, are of considerable assistance in establishing that Amanda's procedural rights were violated - indeed, so were Chiefi's ironically. Across the two applications a lot of ground should be covered by the ECHR in relation to the trial process. Also, Raffaele is likely to apply too.

 

[Grinder]

Unfortunately Biscotti and Gentile have said they don't think there will be an appeal. Link

 

[komponisto]

Fast track is not a nolo contendere trial. The defendant is limited in bringing in expert witnesses and mounting a full defense. But they are allowed to fight against conviction.

I haven't found the motivation for [Guede's] first trial but this link to the appeal motivation will provide you with certain evidences that were presented at his trial.

It's here:

http://www.penale.it/stampa.asp?idpag=750

 

[Kauffer]

“Of course wanting something and it actually happening are two very different things. ”
Walter Biscotti, Guede’s Perugia-based lawyer, flatly denies any plan to request a retrial.
“Those parliamentarians are not allowed to refer anything said by an inmate and I have asked for them to be censured. We are waiting to see the high court’s reasoning.”​

I doubt Biscotti will file. Guede is just about done with his sentence and he won't be cleared totally if at all.

Interesting. If there's an opportunity to do so, I think he will file. What do he and Guede have to lose? His sentence can't be increased and he cannot be tried again for some other crime on the same facts.

 

[Grinder]

It's here:

http://www.penale.it/stampa.asp?idpag=750

Thanks. A quick scan reveals review of testimony (evidence) that was presented in the fast track trial.

Interesting. If there's an opportunity to do so, I think he will file. What do he and Guede have to lose? His sentence can't be increased and he cannot be tried again for some other crime on the same facts.

If a new trial could reduce his sentence why couldn't it increase it? Rudy would have to testify it would seem and as mentioned above if the kids filed a defamation/calumnia claim and the cases could be tried concurrently they could inject themselves into the appeal case as Maresca did in the Massei trial.

 

[Grinder]

A little more reading of Rudi's motivation of the trial of the first instance allowed me to see that they reviewed his crime history as the nursery was mentioned but no dead cat at the neighbors.

 

[carbonjam72]

Interesting. If there's an opportunity to do so, I think he will file. What do he and Guede have to lose? His sentence can't be increased and he cannot be tried again for some other crime on the same facts.

Would this mean that Rudy's original trial (and fast track discount) would also be voided?

Does that mean he would be forfeiting a fast track discount?

I think Rudy would be crazy (although he may be crazy) to give up the deal he got. He's already available for day release, isn't he?

It's not like he was going to be running for office. Maybe running from officers, but that's about it.

Well, all I can say is, Rudy does not disappoint. Woof!

Where's MAACCCHHHH!!???

 

[Kauffer]

Thanks. A quick scan reveals review of testimony (evidence) that was presented in the fast track trial.



If a new trial could reduce his sentence why couldn't it increase it? Rudy would have to testify it would seem and as mentioned above if the kids filed a defamation/calumnia claim and the cases could be tried concurrently they could inject themselves into the appeal case as Maresca did in the Massei trial.

Isn't Guede's position different from what you suggest? Wouldn't he simply argue on the technicalities of an inherent conflict between his verdict and the verdict in the Knox/Sollecito trial? How can he be guilty, he would ask, of a crime the ISC has now ruled didn't take place? (unless that is not what the ISC rules). He doesn't need to testify as to the facts. He would simply argue for a nullification. And he can't be placed twice in jeopardy if he gets it. So, no trial de novo.

Hellmann, quoting the ISC suggests a counter argument to resist Guede regardless of the Knox/Sollecito motivations.

"Furthermore, it is the Corte di Cassazione itself, in the ruling cited by the General Prosecutor and attorneys for the civil parties, which warns: “Thus right from the outset we must resist the attempt — reflected in [literally “pursued by”] the entire structure of the defense case, but out of place in the context of this decision — to involve the [Cassazione] panel in endorsing the hypothesis that others, Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox, were responsible for the murder, aggravated by sexual violence, of Meredith Kercher. The decision that this Court is called to make concerns only the responsibility of Guede with regard to the act under dispute…”"

 

[Kauffer]

Would this mean that Rudy's original trial (and fast track discount) would also be voided?

Does that mean he would be forfeiting a fast track discount?

I think Rudy would be crazy (although he may be crazy) to give up the deal he got. He's already available for day release, isn't he?

It's not like he was going to be running for office. Maybe running from officers, but that's about it.

Well, all I can say is, Rudy does not disappoint. Woof!

Where's MAACCCHHHH!!???

It all depends on the incentives. I'm not sure there would be any downside. Actually think that Yummi would agree with me! It would be a review of trial not a retrial, I think.

 

[Grinder]

Isn't Guede's position different from what you suggest? Wouldn't he simply argue on the technicalities of an inherent conflict between his verdict and the verdict in the Knox/Sollecito trial? How can he be guilty, he would ask, of a crime the ISC has now ruled didn't take place? (unless that is not what the ISC rules). He doesn't need to testify as to the facts. He would simply argue for a nullification. And he can't be placed twice in jeopardy if he gets it. So, no trial de novo.

Hellmann, quoting the ISC suggests a counter argument to resist Guede regardless of the Knox/Sollecito motivations.

"Furthermore, it is the Corte di Cassazione itself, in the ruling cited by the General Prosecutor and attorneys for the civil parties, which warns: “Thus right from the outset we must resist the attempt — reflected in [literally “pursued by”] the entire structure of the defense case, but out of place in the context of this decision — to involve the [Cassazione] panel in endorsing the hypothesis that others, Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox, were responsible for the murder, aggravated by sexual violence, of Meredith Kercher. The decision that this Court is called to make concerns only the responsibility of Guede with regard to the act under dispute…”"

I write without specific knowledge of this, but if an appeal were possible I would think the ISC could send it back to first or second level for retrial. To me it makes no sense that even if the system continues to believe others were there, in one role or another, that that would absolve Rudi. I have never followed the misplaced logic of Rudi's trial and ISC confirmation demanding that the kids must be guilty.

The kids being innocent doesn't do anything but say the ISC in Rudi's case got the accomplice part wrong or that the accomplices weren't the kids.

But if that error would in some way undo Rudi's conviction it would seem it would only undo that aspect and would allow for a new trial.

 

[carbonjam72]

Cassation will clean house, is my guess...

It all depends on the incentives. I'm not sure there would be any downside. Actually think that Yummi would agree with me! It would be a review of trial not a retrial, I think.

I don't see Rudy's case getting re-opened. The only thing I can see is Rudy getting charged with Calunnia for placing false evidence against Amanda and Raf with his famous letter that he read in court. And then having another 6-8 years tacked onto his sentence (coincidentally, a similar amount of time knocked off for his fast track discount).

I think cassation isn't letting this case get away from them again, and that they will put an end to it, in all of its iterations, in this case, and in any ancillary cases.

I just think they are ready to put this case to bed, and don't want it bouncing back at them. I see cassation as just cleaning house with their motivation report.

eta: all remaining cases against Amanda and Raf will be set aside (archived?). However, Raf will decline to take the easy way out with Mignini's suit over his book 'Honor Bound'. Raf (and his lawyer Brizoli, a survivor of Mingini's Narducci trail cases), will press through for full vindication, to be followed by the publication of Raf's book in Italy in Italian, and in the UK in English. Perummphh!!!

 

[Grinder]

It all depends on the incentives. I'm not sure there would be any downside. Actually think that Yummi would agree with me! It would be a review of trial not a retrial, I think.

How do you see the difference?

The ISC accepts his appeal and they look at his case again and determine the first ISC panel was mistaken in saying that he definitely had accomplices and ...?

I see no way (of we talking Italy) that his conviction could be thrown out without a new trial. Plenty of evidence was presented in his first level trial.

 

[LondonJohn]

It all depends on the incentives. I'm not sure there would be any downside. Actually think that Yummi would agree with me! It would be a review of trial not a retrial, I think.

The downside would be his lawyers devoting time and energy - which they could have spent instead on profitable work - on someone without the means to pay them, on an application to the ISC that will inevitably be thrown out. It's called "opportunity cost".......

 

[Kauffer]

How do you see the difference?

The ISC accepts his appeal and they look at his case again and determine the first ISC panel was mistaken in saying that he definitely had accomplices and ...?

I see no way (of we talking Italy) that his conviction could be thrown out without a new trial. Plenty of evidence was presented in his first level trial.

The argument is: He cannot be tried for a different crime on the same facts. He could only be tried again for the same crime, but that couldn't happen in the scenario we are discussing because the ISC would have said that the crime in question doesn't exist. So there is an irreconcilable contradiction which can only be dealt with by the over turning of his conviction and letting him go.

As I understand it, such an application for review of trial goes first to the appellate court and not the ISC with the judgement being an administrative one. If he loses, he can appeal to the ISC. If he prevails in either arena, what is then supposed to happen in the process is that there is a retrial, heard at the appellate level (2nd instance), but the process does not appear to have taken account of the possibility of two ISC motivations being at odds with each other, thus preventing a retrial.

All this is moot if the ISC in the Knox/Sollecito motivation fudges the issue of multiple attackers or says there were multiple attackers but not Amanda and Raffaele.

But, it would also seem likely that Guede's application for review could be resisted by construing the motivation in his own case differently.

Nothing to do with this is particularly clear or pretty. As we all (or most of us) know, what should have happened is that Guede was charged and tried as the sole killer.

 

[Dougm]

The argument is: He cannot be tried for a different crime on the same facts. He could only be tried again for the same crime, but that couldn't happen in the scenario we are discussing because the ISC would have said that the crime in question doesn't exist. So there is an irreconcilable contradiction which can only be dealt with by the over turning of his conviction and letting him go.

As I understand it, such an application for review of trial goes first to the appellate court and not the ISC with the judgement being an administrative one. If he loses, he can appeal to the ISC. If he prevails in either arena, what is then supposed to happen in the process is that there is a retrial, heard at the appellate level (2nd instance), but the process does not appear to have taken account of the possibility of two ISC motivations being at odds with each other, thus preventing a retrial.

All this is moot if the ISC in the Knox/Sollecito motivation fudges the issue of multiple attackers or says there were multiple attackers but not Amanda and Raffaele.

But, it would also seem likely that Guede's application for review could be resisted by construing the motivation in his own case differently.

Nothing to do with this is particularly clear or pretty. As we all (or most of us) know, what should have happened is that Guede was charged and tried as the sole killer.

I see where you are going, but I can't see why the ISC, regardless of what they say in the motivation, will say that the murder "did not exist". They could say the staged break in "does not exist", as Hellmann did, but not the murder. That would be so outrageous I can't see it happening, even in Italy.

What they could do is to say that it is not clear if it was one or multiple attackers, or they could say they think it was multiple attackers, but those "others" were not Knox or Sollecito. Either way, it seems there are multiple ways to approach it that don't leave room for an exoneration of Guede.

If I were him, I would take what I got and be thankful.

 

[Bill Williams]

The argument is: He cannot be tried for a different crime on the same facts. He could only be tried again for the same crime, but that couldn't happen in the scenario we are discussing because the ISC would have said that the crime in question doesn't exist. So there is an irreconcilable contradiction which can only be dealt with by the over turning of his conviction and letting him go.

As I understand it, such an application for review of trial goes first to the appellate court and not the ISC with the judgement being an administrative one. If he loses, he can appeal to the ISC. If he prevails in either arena, what is then supposed to happen in the process is that there is a retrial, heard at the appellate level (2nd instance), but the process does not appear to have taken account of the possibility of two ISC motivations being at odds with each other, thus preventing a retrial.

All this is moot if the ISC in the Knox/Sollecito motivation fudges the issue of multiple attackers or says there were multiple attackers but not Amanda and Raffaele.

But, it would also seem likely that Guede's application for review could be resisted by construing the motivation in his own case differently.

Nothing to do with this is particularly clear or pretty. As we all (or most of us) know, what should have happened is that Guede was charged and tried as the sole killer.

Rewind the clock to the middle of November 2007. Regardless of how the PLE/Mignini got to arresting AK, RS and PL with this murder and declaring, "case closed".......

...... imagine what they should have done when the "fourth suspect" was first identified. Lumumba was already on his way out of jail because it was simply ludicrous to arrest him in the first place (and by that, I mean: ludicrous to arrest him on the info gleaned at an all night interrogation of a foreigner, when even the translator/mediator/diplomat Anna Donino couldn't even translate "See you later" properly).......

And none of the forensics was backing up the stellar investigative instincts of ANY of the cops.

Imagine taking to court in 2009 Rudy Guede as a sole killer of Meredith Kercher. Despite initial thoughts that the climb in Filomena's window was impossible, the cops had actually asked a kid to go up the wall to see if it was doable - just like Channel (5?) eventually did.....

​

Ok. That's how Rudy got in. Rudy was lying when he said Meredith let him in. Rudy was lying when he said he and the victim were having consensual sex, interrupted by his need to shed a kebob in the bathroom. Rudy was lying when he said he heard an argument between Meredith and one of her roommates, and Rudy was lying when he said he saw a man leaving, who'd said, "Black man found, black man guilty."

At the sole trial in 2009 of Rudy Guede they quickly identify that all the other DNA-stuff on the bra-clasp was contamination, probably Raffaele Sollecito, but also three other men, the whole thing suggesting contamination. The kicker though was that they DID test the semen stain, and found it to be Rudy's.

No one would know who some random Seattleite was, nor a kid from Bari, Italy. Winterbottom wouldn't have made a film, a film which essentially embarrasses an equally (now) unknown Barbie Nadeau.

Imagine how this should have proceeded when the "fourth suspect" was identified who actually had had a history of B&E's? There's be no Florence court appeal's judge (cf. Nencini) who'd say in an official court decision, that the reason Rudy had not staged the crime, was because it was exactly is own M.O. immediately recognizable by the PLE!!!!!!

Imagine if the lunacy of the last 7 1/2 years had been put to rest as soon as the fourth, and obvious suspect was identified and everyone else was sent home? The Kerchers would have had their answer in March 2013, when the ISC (as sane one) signed off on Rudy's obvious solo conviction.

 

[Bill Williams]

I'm not sure there is an equivalent in Britsh-inherited law for a "fast-track" trial, so it probably isn't a trial in which someone simply pleads "no contest".

As I understand it - and am obvious open to correction - the plea which a defendant enters is really independent of the fact of it being, "fast track".

http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=26794

During the preliminary hearing the defendant or his lawyer, if entitled with his power of attorney, may request special proceedings, like the fast track trial (giudizio abbrevaito) or plea bargaining (patteggiamento).

Fast-track Trial

The giudizio abbreviato (fast-track trial, literally abbreviated or short proceeding) consists, basically, of proceedings where the trial phase is absent.

It is the Judge of the Preliminary Hearing who, according to the evidence gathered, during the preliminary investigations by the prosecutor and by the lawyer during the defensive investigations, if there were any, convicts or acquits the defendant.

Since this is a reduction of the defendant's rights (he basically gives up his right to presenting new evidence and to be tried by a Judge of the Trial), it must be he who asks that the Judge of the Preliminary Hearing hand down a judgment on him.

The defendant is rewarded with a reduction in sentence. The law states that this reduction is one third.

Both the defendant and the prosecutor can appeal the judgment before the Court of Appeal (rules on merit again, usually without gathering any other evidence) and even before the Corte di Cassazione, the highest Italian court (which cannot rule on merits, but only on correct procedure and correct interpretation of the law).​

While not really being about "no contest", or any other way of pleading for a deal - what a Fast track is, is the defence accepting that what the evidence is which the prosecutor brings, is the evidence - unchallenged.

The point being, when the prosecutor brings evidence that it was a multiple atacker, and that evidence is not challenged at a trial-phase of the proceedings.....

Then it is simply ludicrous to consider it a "judicial fact" which applies to someone not involved with the fast-track process.

 

[Bill Williams]

I'm not sure there is an equivalent in Britsh-inherited law for a "fast-track" trial, so it probably isn't a trial in which someone simply pleads "no contest".

As I understand it - and am obvious open to correction - the plea which a defendant enters is really independent of the fact of it being, "fast track".

http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=26794

During the preliminary hearing the defendant or his lawyer, if entitled with his power of attorney, may request special proceedings, like the fast track trial (giudizio abbrevaito) or plea bargaining (patteggiamento).

Fast-track Trial

The giudizio abbreviato (fast-track trial, literally abbreviated or short proceeding) consists, basically, of proceedings where the trial phase is absent.

It is the Judge of the Preliminary Hearing who, according to the evidence gathered, during the preliminary investigations by the prosecutor and by the lawyer during the defensive investigations, if there were any, convicts or acquits the defendant.

Since this is a reduction of the defendant's rights (he basically gives up his right to presenting new evidence and to be tried by a Judge of the Trial), it must be he who asks that the Judge of the Preliminary Hearing hand down a judgment on him.

The defendant is rewarded with a reduction in sentence. The law states that this reduction is one third.

Both the defendant and the prosecutor can appeal the judgment before the Court of Appeal (rules on merit again, usually without gathering any other evidence) and even before the Corte di Cassazione, the highest Italian court (which cannot rule on merits, but only on correct procedure and correct interpretation of the law).​

While not really being about "no contest", or any other way of pleading for a deal - what a Fast track is, is the defence accepting that what the evidence is which the prosecutor brings, is the evidence - unchallenged.

The point being, when the prosecutor brings evidence that it was a multiple attacker, and that evidence is not challenged at a trial-phase of the proceedings.....

Then it is simply ludicrous to consider it a "judicial fact" which applies to someone not involved with the fast-track process.